Honda had to of cut costs in some area's to keep this new Accord such a great deal and bargin it is. And this is one of the area's.

Remember how well crafted and designed the older engines and looked? Showing off their beautifully crafted heads and manifolds. Honda has always built a beautiful looking engine. Even the K24Z's and K24Y's looked good with their integrated exhaust manifolds.

K24A2

[K24Z7

And now we get plastic covers on the head and a ugly exhaust manifolds in our face!

K24W1

K24W1 without plastic head cover

And yeah I know this is a stupid thing to complain about when the performance of this engine is so good but I love the way Honda engines look. This was kinda a let down for me.

Hondatalover wrote:And yeah I know this is a stupid thing to complain about when the performance of this engine is so good but I love the way Honda engines look. This was kinda a let down for me.

The K24W1 looks like it is mounted the same way as the R18 in the Civic. Is there a technical reason for the change in the way the engine is installed in the engine bay?

Having seen the dyno charts though... I really don't care so much about the aesthetic changes. 179 HP at the wheels for an I4 on regular gasoline? Holy f$#! Assuming a 10%-15% driveline loss for the 6MT, the engine is actually making somewhere between 199 and 210 horsepower at the crank.

Hondatalover wrote:And yeah I know this is a stupid thing to complain about when the performance of this engine is so good but I love the way Honda engines look. This was kinda a let down for me.

The K24W1 looks like it is mounted the same way as the R18 in the Civic. Is there a technical reason for the change in the way the engine is installed in the engine bay?

Having seen the dyno charts though... I really don't care so much about the aesthetic changes. 179 HP at the wheels for an I4 on regular gasoline? Holy f$#! Assuming a 10%-15% driveline loss for the 6MT, the engine is actually making somewhere between 199 and 210 horsepower at the crank.

Thanks Jeff for running this dyno test!

Not too sure about the mounting. I assume its cheaper somehow? Maybe because of the new platform.. IDK.

I totally agree, people just don't know about how these Honda's out do their self's. ;)

Roughly 210HP/ 190LB-FT at the crank is ALOT on a N/A, 83 octane 2.4L. 179HP and 173LB-FT at the wheels is no joke!

J35Y and K24W both outperform their suggested numbers on paper when on the Dyno!

Hondatalover wrote:Honda had to of cut costs in some area's to keep this new Accord such a great deal and bargin it is. And this is one of the area's.

Remember how well crafted and designed the older engines and looked? Showing off their beautifully crafted heads and manifolds. Honda has always built a beautiful looking engine. Even the K24Z's and K24Y's looked good with their integrated exhaust manifolds.

And now we get plastic covers on the head and a ugly exhaust manifolds in our face!

And yeah I know this is a stupid thing to complain about when the performance of this engine is so good but I love the way Honda engines look. This was kinda a let down for me.

Take a look at an ecoboost without the plastic shrouds. Looks like a science project.

JeffX wrote:Take a look at an ecoboost without the plastic shrouds. Looks like a science project.

YIKES!!

lol I guess Honda is still making some pretty damn sexy engines then, huh? They sound, perform and run the best while making decent or better yet, competitive numbers on paper. Dyno says other wise. ;)

IIRC, we heard something mentioned about heat management with the new platform. It was too tough to keep the close coupled cat from cooking everything on the firewall without a ton of insulation. Moving it to the front eliminates a lot of radiant and convective heat issues for the cabin.

SC

Hondatalover wrote:Not too sure about the mounting. I assume its cheaper somehow? Maybe because of the new platform.. IDK.

notyper wrote:IIRC, we heard something mentioned about heat management with the new platform. It was too tough to keep the close coupled cat from cooking everything on the firewall without a ton of insulation. Moving it to the front eliminates a lot of radiant and convective heat issues for the cabin.

SC

Hondatalover wrote:Not too sure about the mounting. I assume its cheaper somehow? Maybe because of the new platform.. IDK.

you remembered correctly. As I recall, I think they mentioned that the cat's large size also proved to be a packaging challenge - due to the size of it, the resulting limited clearance with the firewall was going to create too many thermal headaches, so they just flipped the head back to the "old way".

notyper wrote:IIRC, we heard something mentioned about heat management with the new platform. It was too tough to keep the close coupled cat from cooking everything on the firewall without a ton of insulation. Moving it to the front eliminates a lot of radiant and convective heat issues for the cabin.

SC

you remembered correctly. As I recall, I think they mentioned that the cat's large size also proved to be a packaging challenge - due to the size of it, the resulting limited clearance with the firewall was going to create too many thermal headaches, so they just flipped the head back to the "old way".

JeffX wrote:you remembered correctly. As I recall, I think they mentioned that the cat's large size also proved to be a packaging challenge - due to the size of it, the resulting limited clearance with the firewall was going to create too many thermal headaches, so they just flipped the head back to the "old way".

Is that part of why the Mazda6 seems to have a gap between the front wheels and the front door? In order to fit the 4-2-1 exhaust manifolds and the cat? IIRC, Mazda has the '14 Mazda6 engine mounted with the intake facing forward.

notyper wrote:IIRC, we heard something mentioned about heat management with the new platform. It was too tough to keep the close coupled cat from cooking everything on the firewall without a ton of insulation. Moving it to the front eliminates a lot of radiant and convective heat issues for the cabin.

SC

you remembered correctly. As I recall, I think they mentioned that the cat's large size also proved to be a packaging challenge - due to the size of it, the resulting limited clearance with the firewall was going to create too many thermal headaches, so they just flipped the head back to the "old way".

Makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.

Yep. It's like traditional honda engines....intake at the back and exhaust up front. It won't looks as pretty but probably more functional.

I think this is not just about power rating alone - there's some trickery with TCS/VSA/ABS behavior as well.
'03 V6 auto would light TCS warning and cut the power off if you take off too aggressively, especially with laughable OEM 16" 215/x-16 tires.
It was rather unpleasant experience.
Even after moving to sticky 225/45-17 summer tires that issues was only partially tamed.
On '13 I4 6mt I yet have to see TCS coming on.
Have not tried aggressive clutch drops yet (and very unlikely ever will) but somewhat quick lunch does provide some of the wheelspin which not once cause TCS to come one or cut off the power delivery, it's rather short and in fact feels very similar to LSD action (which this car simply does not have).
So to me it looks like they probably changed some of the suspension geometry or perhaps alignment to make this car more tractable.
It's a blast to drive with manual - feels very refined and accelerates almost effortlessly.

_Alex_ wrote:I think this is not just about power rating alone - there's some trickery with TCS/VSA/ABS behavior as well.
'03 V6 auto would light TCS warning and cut the power off if you take off too aggressively, especially with laughable OEM 16" 215/x-16 tires.
It was rather unpleasant experience.
Even after moving to sticky 225/45-17 summer tires that issues was only partially tamed.

The 2013 Accord V6 with 17's murders traction all the way up till 40MPH. TCS jumps on and off quickly to keep wheel spin down but rapid acceleration up. Very clever of Honda.

_Alex_ wrote:I think this is not just about power rating alone - there's some trickery with TCS/VSA/ABS behavior as well.
'03 V6 auto would light TCS warning and cut the power off if you take off too aggressively, especially with laughable OEM 16" 215/x-16 tires.
It was rather unpleasant experience.
Even after moving to sticky 225/45-17 summer tires that issues was only partially tamed.
On '13 I4 6mt I yet have to see TCS coming on.
Have not tried aggressive clutch drops yet (and very unlikely ever will) but somewhat quick lunch does provide some of the wheelspin which not once cause TCS to come one or cut off the power delivery, it's rather short and in fact feels very similar to LSD action (which this car simply does not have).
So to me it looks like they probably changed some of the suspension geometry or perhaps alignment to make this car more tractable.
It's a blast to drive with manual - feels very refined and accelerates almost effortlessly.

There's no button to turn off TCS in the Accord? I can turn off VSA completely in my 2g TL-S.

VSA also provides a limited-slip differential effect for the front wheels by applying braking force to a slipping wheel, thereby redirecting driving force to the wheel with more traction.VSA is calibrated to function in a near-transparent manner, and in many cases a driver will not even be aware of its operation. However, anytime the system engages, an indicator light flashes in the instrument cluster. While the driver can deactivate the VSA stability enhancement and traction-control functions via a switch on the instrument panel, ABS remains fully operational at all times.

This may be it.
Do not recall reading about this before, used to be Acura only feature (TL/TSX).